They are going ahead with a Justice League movie

Don't get me wrong I want a JL movie but a good one.
I don't necessarily buy that the masses of general movie goers are as fully understanding of DC characters as some allege. Of course we all want the big 6-7 but will people(and I'm saying it's more than many think) who don't really know Flash, MM or only think Aquaman is a joke buy into a film with the other 4? Minimal explanation at best, go get 'em Flash. And they may think GL is a bit of joke after it's underperformance if they saw it at all.

They might establish one or two more of the characters in individual films before a Justice League film is made depending on the timeframe they have in mind. For example, they might greenlight The Flash for 2014 and then make Justice League in 2015.

The most innocuous thing will keep this from ever happening. The setting for the final battle. Marvel has a go-to in New York, NY. DC has Gotham City, Coast City, Central City, Star City, Metropolis, Bludhaven, blah blah blah. Just picking the right fake city for the denoument will cause fights that will shelve the stupid thing..

Click to expand...

Honestly, I can't see Warner letting such a silly little issue scupper a major production. Just set the thing all over the world, and have Darkseid (or whomever) attacking London, Paris, New York, and Washington D.C. Or maybe set the big finale on the moon or Apokolips.

Nobody but hardcore fanboys will care if the Flash suddenly shows up in Metropolis instead of Central City. And it's not like Warner or DC has a vested interest in promoting the "Star City" brand . . . .

They might establish one or two more of the characters in individual films before a Justice League film is made depending on the timeframe they have in mind. For example, they might greenlight The Flash for 2014 and then make Justice League in 2015.

Click to expand...

I'd like that. The Flash was still out to a writer last I recall. They just assigned WW.
It does raise the question on what type timetable they are looking at with this.
It could be they are doing a truncated solo film build up and just not announcing it as such like Marvel did in '06 when they took out that loan to start up the studio.

Could Man of Steel be a de facto starting point?
Then roll out Flash, WW and a JL movie.
Let's face it this could be a great fallow area to get distance between Nolan Batman and the next solo Bat franchise. Batman is one of two characters in the film that needs ZERO introduction. They could just cast an actor for JL film(s). Also toss in John Stewart as GL, a de factor reboot there?

Obviously Christopher you carry a closer opinion on such things being a writer.

Click to expand...

Opinion has nothing to do with it. It's a documented fact. You can find plenty of evidence to support it. It's simply the nature of feature filmmaking in Hollywood, a consequence of the way it's structured, that the people who get screen credit for writing a movie may have very little to do with the final content of the film. That's why there are so very many cases of the same screenwriter being credited for both awful films and wonderful films (like David Goyer on the Blade films vs. the Nolan Batman films, or John Logan writing both the Oscar-winning Gladiator and the poorly-received Star Trek: Nemesis -- although I actually liked Nemesis).

John Stewart as GL could work without even full reboot. Just like in the comics he would just be another GL.

All of this of course depends on popularity. If a JLA is not successful it would probably prevent the lesser known characters getting a movie again for years, if ever. Superman and Batman would not be effected much by a bad JLA movie.

I agree this should start with a World's Finest movie. Seeing them together is what most people really care about. Superman and Batman will overshadow all the other members in a JLA movie anyway.

My theory is that the 'standard' comic book film is something people don't want to see..

Click to expand...

I disagree. Watchmen wasn't the standard comic book movie and that's why it failed. People were expecting the type of formulaic movie we've had in EVERY single super hero movie made since 2000. What they got was a murder mystery in a world of shades of gray that lacked "super villains". (Come to think of it, when was the last time you heard anyone mention Kick Ass?)

They wanted "Iron Man Begins Forever Part 6". They want standard "Good Guy vs Bad Guy" stuff and looking at Avengers success, they also don't want to think much either with their comic book movies. The movie was enjoyable, but it was a standard popcorn flick with all the depth of an inflatable baby pool.

(look at Green Lantern, or the only marginal hype for Amazing Spider-Man) but if there is a decent build up to it,then people will want to see how it plays.

Click to expand...

Soooo.....they need to make movies about Hal Jordan and Peter Parker and then build up to the movie where they actually become super heroes?

GL was hyped so much that people were getting sick of it and bombed because it was badly executed garbage. No one's getting worked up about Spider-Man because the last series was a mega hit, it wasn't that long ago and there's the feeling of "been there, done that".

Why? Joss Whedon was at the helm of a train that was already heading down hill, full speed, when he sat in the engineers chair. The MCU had been working towards Avengers for years, there was already massive anticipation for the film and and no one was doubting that it was going to be a huge hit. The only surprise was how huge it actually was.

It was pretty much like every MCU film before it....fairly serious, a healthy dose of humor, cartoon bad guy and lots of cool fight scenes. It's been a successful formula so far.

When he can make the kind of bank Raimi, Nolan and Favreau have, without a six movie lead in, over the course of years, to build anticipation for a movie, I'll give him more props. Until then he'll just be a guy who was in the right place at the right time using a tried and true formula.

Obviously Christopher you carry a closer opinion on such things being a writer.

Click to expand...

Opinion has nothing to do with it. It's a documented fact. You can find plenty of evidence to support it. It's simply the nature of feature filmmaking in Hollywood, a consequence of the way it's structured, that the people who get screen credit for writing a movie may have very little to do with the final content of the film. That's why there are so very many cases of the same screenwriter being credited for both awful films and wonderful films (like David Goyer on the Blade films vs. the Nolan Batman films, or John Logan writing both the Oscar-winning Gladiator and the poorly-received Star Trek: Nemesis -- although I actually liked Nemesis).

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you that things get altered from screen to page that can be outside the screenwriters control. That interpretation of page then translated to direction of an actor can at times not be fluid. I feel this was part of what happened with the one of few lines that Whedon wrote in the first X-Men film "lightning hits a toad..."
If you're citing Blade films as awful I'd just disagree and I also think Nemesis is overly bashed(some it deserves but overall).

I just disagree that it's not unwarranted or undeserving to look at a screenwriter as you would any other person in the process-director, producer, composer etc.. and say "Do I like your prior work?", "What have you done lately, was I impressed?"

I don't disagree with you that things get altered from screen to page that can be outside the screenwriters control. That interpretation of page then translated to direction of an actor can at times not be fluid.

Click to expand...

It goes way beyond that, though. Most directors supervise the writing of scripts (along with producers and studio execs) and see that they're tailored to their liking.

I just disagree that it's not unwarranted or undeserving to look at a screenwriter as you would any other person in the process-director, producer, composer etc.. and say "Do I like your prior work?", "What have you done lately, was I impressed?"

Click to expand...

Sure, fine, but just don't overestimate how much influence the screenwriter has over the process, and don't trust that the writing credits you see on the screen have anything to do with who's actually responsible for the finished film. What's credited as a given writer's work may contain virtually none of their actual work, so you have to be skeptical of what you read in the credits.

Why? Joss Whedon was at the helm of a train that was already heading down hill, full speed, when he sat in the engineers chair. The MCU had been working towards Avengers for years, there was already massive anticipation for the film and and no one was doubting that it was going to be a huge hit. The only surprise was how huge it actually was.

Click to expand...

Please, there might have been a lot of anticipation for Avengers, but it still could have VERY easily ended up either a completely trainwreck, or just another average, by the numbers superhero flick, given all the different characters involved.

Whedon might have made it look deceptively easy, but he still had to juggle a LOT of different story elements to make the thing work. He not only did that brilliantly, but in the end made an even better movie than most of the ones that led up to it, which is no small feat.

There are a couple of reasons that The Avengers worked that JLA does not have. Regardless of how WB plans it.

The Marvel universe has been integrated in the comics from the beginning. With crossover appearances right away. Because Stan Lee wrote all the books. DC was not like that for years. The JSA and the JLA rarely interacted in their own books. Just Superman and Batman for a long time.

As a result with DC it seems more forced. because a lot of DC's characters where based on the Superman archetype in some way. Only Batman is completely different from him. So it's not surprising that those are their two most popular characters.

While The Avengers are completely different from each other. Which offer great contrasts and conflicts. Due to mostly being from the same team of Lee and Kirby. They wanted each book to be different from the other to be more interesting for them to create.

Whedon might have made it look deceptively easy, but he still had to juggle a LOT of different story elements to make the thing work. He not only did that brilliantly, but in the end made an even better movie than most of the ones that led up to it, which is no small feat.

Click to expand...

Whedon was able to juggle all the characters and make the movie actually about the TEAM.

Everyone got some development and a chance to shine. It wasn't all about Iron Man like I feared it would become.

Those X-Men movies focused almost entirely on Wolverine while the rest of this teammates were shoved to the background. I still won't forgive them for what they did to Cyclops.

The DC Universe has been integrated for so long that it doesn't seem forced at all in my opinion. There are logic problems in the notion of a shared universe full of superheroes, but that's true of the DC and Marvel Universes alike.

I just disagree that it's not unwarranted or undeserving to look at a screenwriter as you would any other person in the process-director, producer, composer etc.. and say "Do I like your prior work?", "What have you done lately, was I impressed?"

Click to expand...

True, but it's also worth remembering that just looking at the talents' resume is not always the most reliable indicator.

Case in point: GREEN LANTERN. On paper, Martin Campbell seemed like a logical choice for director. He'd already done stellar work with James Bond and Zorro, so why not turn him loose on Green Lantern, too? And yet . . .

On other hand, prior to IRON MAN, Jon Favreau was probably best known for ELF. Not exactly an action-packed comic book blockbuster. But that turned out great.

And I'm old enough to remember the howls of fannish despair when (gasp!) the director of BEETLEJUICE and PEE-WEE'S BIG ADVENTURE was hired to do BATMAN. Clearly, that was going to bomb big time . . . .

My theory is that the 'standard' comic book film is something people don't want to see..

Click to expand...

I disagree. Watchmen wasn't the standard comic book movie and that's why it failed. People were expecting the type of formulaic movie we've had in EVERY single super hero movie made since 2000. What they got was a murder mystery in a world of shades of gray that lacked "super villains". (Come to think of it, when was the last time you heard anyone mention Kick Ass?)

They wanted "Iron Man Begins Forever Part 6". They want standard "Good Guy vs Bad Guy" stuff and looking at Avengers success, they also don't want to think much either with their comic book movies. The movie was enjoyable, but it was a standard popcorn flick with all the depth of an inflatable baby pool.

(look at Green Lantern, or the only marginal hype for Amazing Spider-Man) but if there is a decent build up to it,then people will want to see how it plays.

Click to expand...

Soooo.....they need to make movies about Hal Jordan and Peter Parker and then build up to the movie where they actually become super heroes?

GL was hyped so much that people were getting sick of it and bombed because it was badly executed garbage. No one's getting worked up about Spider-Man because the last series was a mega hit, it wasn't that long ago and there's the feeling of "been there, done that".

You may have to clarify this one a bit.

Click to expand...

You don't have to be confrontational. You don't have to be argumentative. I'm seeing a general sense of comic-book overload, a lot of people are kind of sick of them. That's all Hollywood is making. watchmen wasn't the success that the studio wanted. Superman returns wasn't either. People didn't buy into how cool Green Lantern would be.. I don't see a lot of excitement for Spider-Man, partly for the reasons you mentioned. But in general, i think the movie going public is ready to move on. You could use the Avengers tremendous success to question my point, but that film was a culmination of years of build up. People wanted to see it, they wanted to see how it played. Same with TDKR, the finale of trilogy built over seven years. People want to see how both of these films will play. It's almost like they are looking for a satisfying way to purge the genre from their system. My bet is that the individual movies leading up to the Avengers 2 won't match the success of the Avengers, and, unless the stories are absolutely phenomenal, the heroes' names alone won't guarantee success (one need only look at Iron Man 2 to see that I'm right0. And what happens when Avengers 2 comes around. They all team up to fight more aliens. It might have been somewhat special to see comic book heroes team up once to fight aliens, but twice-- I'm not sure.